UK Guardian: Won't get fooled again

[T_i_B]

Great article calling for common sense in the war on terror and also, UN involvement. Make of this what you will.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1003907,00.html

Iraq is providing the Bush administration with some hard and necessary lessons. One home truth is that frightening the voters only works for a while. George Bush & Co put a great deal of effort into persuading Americans that Saddam Hussein posed a direct threat to home, high school, family SUV and, generally, to the American way of life. Lest we forget, Bush claimed at one point that unmanned aerial vehicles could menace US cities with biological or chemical weapons. Dick Cheney went bigger than big on the supposed Iraqi nuclear threat. Bush adopted the notorious Blair-Campbell "45 minutes to Armageddon" one-liner, as well as the exotic Niger yellowcake fairytale.

Many voters must wonder, with Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry, whether increased resources for airline and border security, police, firefighters and a more effective FBI might not be a better bet than spending $3.9bn a month on occupying a country that does not want to be occupied. That total does not include the Afghan quagmire - or the human and political cost of daily US casualties. Another White House contender, Dick Gephardt, says a "macho" Bush has left the US "less safe and less secure".

The Riyadh bombing in May, the current Taliban/al-Qaida resurgence in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and this week's Saudi anti-terror purges show how serious the threat still is. "New instability in Afghanistan and the continued spread of jihadist ideology mean that the prospects for another September 11 are growing," security analysts Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon commented in the New York Times this week. "America ... still lacks a comprehensive programme to deal with a growing global insurgency."

If al-Qaida were successfully to mount another large-scale attack within the US, where would that leave Bush? Victimising Iran, Syria or North Korea or some other hapless "rogue" would not save his political skin a second time around. Rather, Bush would be left looking like a blusterer who put the frighteners on his own people but failed in his primary duty to protect.

[J B]

1. Too bad the article's wrong.

Fear alone may not work. Fear and burning buildings will.

[izzie]

2. Good item and always lots in that paper.

n/t

[dawg]

3. No - I believe another "terrorist" attack works against GWB

Voters will perceive Bush as having failed to protect us, and although his approval ratings might momentarily spike upwards - voters will pull the lever for someone else come November. Especially someone who can project a strong competent image.